The early Middle Ages saw the rise of a new social body in Europe: the nobility. This group quickly gained prominence within the monarchy, acquiring titles and privileges that gradually became hereditary. However, writing the history of a social “group” such as the nobility over a vast period like the Middle Ages seems impossible and futile. Indeed, there is no singular “medieval aristocracy” any more than there is a uniform “peasantry” that can be definitively described across time and space. Instead, there are “aristocracies,” just as there are “peasantries,” dispersed in different places at different times.
Defining Aristocracy and Nobility
Contested Origins of Nobility
One can even go further and ask whether it is necessary or relevant to try to “frame” this society. The goal is not to draw a stereotypical portrait—though practical, it would be a caricature—but rather to approach the aristocracy as a structure legitimizing power, which exercises its dominance over the rest of medieval society. This article does not aim for exhaustiveness—far from it—but instead seeks to highlight the “evolutions” of this heterogeneous “group” that dominated. Similarly, the concept of “noble” is complex. There is the aspect of birth, grounded in family prestige and ancestors, and another tied more to reputation. In any case, a “noble” must maintain their status, and birth alone is essential but insufficient.
The history of nobility’s origins is far from settled, even among historians. Several theories are at odds. Some argue for historical continuity, making the medieval aristocracy the heirs of both Germanic leaders and the Roman elite. Conversely, others see the medieval aristocracy as new, emerging after the Merovingians eliminated many great families. This theory is sometimes bolstered by highlighting the “democratic” nature of barbarian leadership, which, through elections, allowed the rise of new men.
Of course, this debate remains unresolved, and historians continue to disagree. Therefore, it is better to analyze the evolution of power relations by emphasizing a certain Roman continuity while integrating the Germanic migrations. However, two major elements should not be ignored: the emergence of royal power and the growing importance of the Church.
By the late Roman Empire, the aristocracy was not a homogenous group. The provincial aristocracy derived most of its income from land exploitation, while the senatorial aristocracy held public offices, which gave them prestige, legitimacy, and significant rewards. In the 5th century, the senatorial aristocracy moved south, following the emperor. The northern lands fell into the hands of the provincial aristocracy, which used this opportunity to increase their income.
Gradually, following what is often called the “barbarian invasions,” Frankish and Saxon aristocracies intermarried with the Roman aristocracy. Their modes of domination influenced each other, leading to a fusion of aristocratic groups. This is still visible today through archaeology, which has shown a relative homogeneity in burial goods across Central Europe around the 6th century. Another observable fact is the evolution of family names, which tended to become Germanized in some regions and Frenchified in others. This is explained by the fact that, in this society where women and daughters inherited land, mixed marriages provided opportunities to expand one’s holdings. Frankish, Germanic, and Roman aristocracies thus united around the land.
At this point, several characteristics that would define a “new” medieval aristocracy began to take shape. This remains schematic but highlights the slow “social” construction that took several centuries, excluding the idea of a sharp break from the structures and ways of functioning inherited from Antiquity.
Establishment of Royal/Imperial Power and the Church
What we have discussed did not happen simultaneously or in the same places. Other important phenomena were also at play. During the 5th century, the old senatorial aristocracy gradually took control of a new source of power: the episcopacy. Indeed, many bishops or even abbots were former senators, like Dynamus, bishop of Avignon around 625, who “once thanked God for the title of patrician but who, wishing to serve the Most High no longer as a hero, decreed to follow the true good.”
Their ecclesiastical role also became a political one. The senator-turned-bishop wielded local power—often neglected—and, due to the absence of a strong ecclesiastical hierarchy (the pope was still only “the bishop of Rome”), could define for himself what “nobility” meant. It was not uncommon for some bishops to use religious dogma to “exempt” the social system they claimed to control, thereby imposing new taxes “tailored” to their needs, as seen with the tithe established at the Council of Mâcon in 585.
In this context, the Church sought to control the sacred and positioned itself as an institution legitimizing royal power. Clergy members relegated the secular aristocracy to a secondary role, placing the king in the forefront. By institutionalizing royal power, the ecclesiastical aristocracy asserted itself against the secular aristocracy.
The king gradually positioned himself as the “first among aristocrats,” redefining the hierarchy of power based on his person and rank. To achieve this, competing local rulers were eliminated (not necessarily physically) with the support of the Church. Furthermore, the baptism of Clovis is seen by some historians as a highly visible sign of distinction from the rest of the aristocracy, making the king the only anointed aristocrat, thus elevating him above the others. Legal codes, such as the Salic Law, and the Church conferred a major role on royal power. Now, secular aristocrats wishing to “rise in rank” had to align themselves with royal power, which in return provided military protection. In this context, the practice of arms became increasingly important.
Under the Carolingians, royal and then imperial power reached a new level of authority and structure. The sovereign granted honors to his aristocratic entourage. The term “noble” seemed to be reserved for those close to the emperor, forming an “aristocratic elite.” The king/emperor turned royal/imperial service into an instrument capable of transforming the de facto power of the secular aristocracy into a legitimate exercise of power. By serving the king/emperor well and receiving all honors, the locally influential aristocracy facilitated the establishment of royal/imperial power.
It was in this context that the system of vassalage spread. The earliest benefits recorded date from 735 and were attributed to Charles Martel. The principle was simple: in exchange for a benefit guaranteed by an oath of loyalty, the king/emperor surrounded himself with royal vassals expected to provide military service and, later, to participate in campaigns. The preeminence of the king/emperor became increasingly evident, and power relations were structured vertically, with the king/emperor at the top.
However, this “imperial omnipotence,” which peaked under Charlemagne, seemed to lose momentum by the 9th century. Many major vassals replicated the royal/imperial model at their own level, which logically diminished the royal/imperial influence. But that is not the whole story. In the 9th century, tensions emerged between clerical power and the aristocracy.
Clerics tried to prohibit marriages between relatives up to the seventh degree of kinship. Secular aristocrats took advantage of the weakening imperial power and tensions with the clergy to seize many Church properties. In 845, a council in Meaux convened, but tensions remained high as clerics threatened to excommunicate and even condemn to death aristocrats they called “greedy.”
Between the 9th and 10th centuries, honors became scarce due to the decline in conquests. Like all rare things, they became coveted and were jealously guarded, eventually becoming hereditary. Counts strengthened their local powers, redefining their titles. No longer counts “by the will of the king/emperor,” they became counts “by the will of God.” Royal/imperial power was relegated to the background, and counts increasingly took control of royal prerogatives.
At the same time, a true society of “allies” emerged, aiming to preserve power. Marriages, sometimes even incestuous, became common practice to ensure control over the comital authority. Alliances formed, with mutual oaths of loyalty becoming widespread. The family system was thus transformed, giving way to a new aristocratic organization that had to rely on strategy to maintain its power.
Space and People in the Middle Ages
It is not the purpose here to discuss the famous “feudal mutation” that is a subject of debate among medievalists. However, a change is clearly observed at the end of the 10th century and the turn of the 11th century, with the beginning of Hugh Capet’s reign, when royal power once again seems to play a significant role.
Regardless, the major issue of the Middle Ages is the connection to the land. In this predominantly agrarian society, the possession of one or more plots of land is essential. On this point, we must set aside our modern perception of what “property” means to better understand the relationship between medieval people and land. The ownership of land is closely tied to the duration of the holder’s relationship with it. Therefore, it becomes complicated and very rare for a lord to possess all his lands as a single contiguous block, contributing to the spatial scattering of parcels. The trend toward spatial consolidation of lands would only take hold starting in the 16th century.
In fact, a lordship represents more the power of a lord over his lands than a homogeneous territorial “block.” Thus, on a given territory, several lordships can overlap without unity. When a village community obtains a charter of franchise, such as the one in Blois in 1196, this benefits a lord who then receives “an annual rent from anyone living in Blois and its outskirts.” Consequently, some villagers who previously depended on a different lordship now have to pay a new rent to another lord.
During the 11th century, the aristocracy took root in this better “gridded” territory by having motte-and-bailey castles built. We are still far from the William the Conquerors that populate our contemporary imagination. More likely, it was a tower—most often made of wood—built on top of a mound of varying height, between 10 to 20 meters, and with a diameter ranging from 30 to 100 meters. This tower was surrounded by a wooden palisade. At the foot of the structure, what is known as the “bailey” quickly developed, where artisanal and agricultural activities grew. Gradually, prestige was no longer measured solely by horizontal occupation of space but also by vertical dominance.
Historians from the 19th and early 20th centuries certainly overemphasized the military character of the “castle.” Certainly, in frontier areas such as Catalonia, near Muslim territories to the south, or in England after William the Conqueror’s conquest, the military function may have motivated the construction of a castle. However, the primary function of the “castrum” was more about being a center of production and artisanal and agricultural activities. In fact, aristocrats were no longer merely “passing through” their domains but tended to reside there to manage this nucleus and show that they were at the center of it. Gradually, these wooden towers were rebuilt or constructed in stone, with peasant dwellings added to them, as seen in the process of incastellamento in northern Italy or Catalonia.
Within village communities, lords sought to make their power visible, for example by having these famous towers built or with fortified houses surrounded by a large moat and a rampart. In addition to being places of residence, these structures served as centers of production and locations where peasants, or serfs, came to pay their dues. By the 15th century, for example, there were nearly 14,000 such manor houses in Brittany. Alongside these cultivated spaces, where lordly control was more easily justified, there were many uncultivated areas referred to as saltus or forests.
To claim these spaces, the aristocracy had to develop a discourse and practices to legitimize their control. Indeed, these lands were important sources of valuable materials such as wood, game, or trees that produced fruits, necessary for pannage. This control over forests was established partly through hunting, which became an aristocratic activity of primary importance. Hunting game, especially boar until the 12th century and deer afterward, was a highly socializing activity. Hunting grounds, such as forests, gradually became reserved for lords who increasingly controlled access to them.
From the 10th century onward, rural areas underwent a restructuring that favored a communal way of life within a defined space, known as the finage. The plots of a single peasant could be scattered within this finage, forcing them to work in symbiosis with other community members. Some peasants stood out from the rest, contributing to the formation of a “rural elite.” This dominant group acted as intermediaries between lordly power and the rest of the community, ensuring dialogue and negotiations. Thus, during revolts, this rural elite, made up of mayors, provosts, or wealthy farmers, tended to remain on the sidelines, indicating that social homogeneity among non-aristocrats was also relative.
These communities gradually took charge of the mode of production, reducing lordly interventions. The proportion of seigneurial reserves tended to decrease around the 13th century, leading to a reduction in forced labor, which then took on a strong symbolic significance. Forced labor still remained as a reminder of lordly power. Being exempt from it was a sign of social recognition, most often reserved for the rural elite. Conversely, refusing to perform forced labor was a rejection of communal belonging and, thus, a denial of lordly power.
However, to ensure their maintenance, lords encouraged the implementation of two distinct modes of production. On one side, tenant farming was an indirect method where the lord leased lands under a long-term contract, ensuring a fixed rent. On the other side, sharecropping connected the owner and the farmer. The sharecropper worked the land short-term—often renewable—in exchange for giving a portion of the harvest to the owner. The owner/lord sometimes provided part of the seeds and tools. This method of farming was more conducive to innovation.
From the 11th century onward, in addition to the number of honors and the position held with the sovereign, an aristocrat’s prestige was also measured by the number of estates they owned. Furthermore, the more scattered the lands were, the more likely it was that the aristocrat was of high rank. Power was exercised directly within these domains. A new mode of exploitation was already being developed during the Merovingian period.
However, it is not uncommon to find references in texts to slave-operated estates run by servi. Increasingly, estates were divided into several plots, the tenures, distributed to settlers who, in exchange, paid rent in kind to the master. At the same time, the system of forced labor was perfected. This new organization was encouraged by the Church, which managed large estates.
Secular Aristocracy and Ecclesiastical Aristocracy
Lords began adopting new behaviors, such as increasingly being called by the name of the castle where they resided (e.g., So-and-so of Such Castle). Power and individuals were gradually integrated, more or less effectively, into a hierarchical castle network. In some regions, such as in the Holy Roman Empire, the builders of stone castles primarily came from the high aristocracy, around three-quarters of them. In fact, a high-ranking aristocrat could own multiple castles, which he would inhabit successively. In his absence, the castle was entrusted to guardians tasked with ensuring local seigneurial control on behalf of the lord. These guards sometimes adopted the name of the castle they were responsible for as their surname. Occasionally, they were also accompanied by a small group of men, often referred to as “milites castri.”
For many historians, a new legal and social system took shape around the castle, based on feudal-vassalic relationships, homage ceremonies, oaths, or the fief: feudalism. However, the risk of applying too rigid a framework to this society is that it may not account for the variety of sources, which suggest the need to relativize this overly closed model. For instance, in 1890, historian Jacques Flach wrote, somewhat provocatively, that “historians have developed a very complete and well-ordered legal system, which has only one flaw: it never existed.” This statement should not be taken literally but should prompt us to keep the model flexible. Regarding the fief, for example, we must discard the overly material view often associated with it. It should be understood more as a form of power granted by a lord to a vassal. This power could indeed be material but could also take the form of judicial rights, tolls, and so on.
Regarding “sensitive” topics, medievalists are not all in agreement about the social role and dating of the appearance of the miles, sometimes translated as “The Nobility in the West (5th-15th centuries).” The term miles encompasses several “realities.” It refers to both royal figures and pure mercenaries, as well as the entire aristocratic hierarchy. Often, it refers to a group of armed men. However, common traits can be discerned: the miles is always involved in relations of domination.
Similarly, the term includes the notion of service owed to someone or a structure (e.g., miles castri or miles christi). Therefore, one must be cautious with this term, which requires careful analysis each time it is encountered. Aristocratic nomenclature changed again in the 11th century. At the top was the high-ranking aristocracy, followed by their vassals, who were both nobles and knights, and finally other milites, who were mostly “vassals of the vassals.” This simplistic schema, of course, must be nuanced depending on the region.
For an aristocrat, the transition from “minority” to “majority” appears to be crucial in the quest for power. Several “rites of passage” had to be completed; those who failed were considered “young.” Marriage was one of these rites, as it demonstrated the ability to access power through the establishment of a network. The practice of tournaments—strongly condemned by the Church—was another of these rites, where social prestige was the main goal.
However, we must not forget the significant role played by another aristocracy: that of the clerics. The social origins of the ecclesiastical aristocracy are difficult to determine. One should not be blinded by Erasmus, who, at the end of the 15th century, remarked of the [chapter of Strasbourg] that Christ Himself could not have been admitted without special dispensation. Nevertheless, it seems established that a large part of the clergy came directly from the secular aristocracy, sometimes even from high ranks.
Again, conclusions should not be drawn too hastily, and the significant nuances that exist should be highlighted. For example, in the 12th and 13th centuries, of the 610 bishops recorded in the Empire, 240—40%—had unknown social origins, while 192—25%—came from the high aristocracy. The rest also came from the aristocracy, clearly showing that the secular aristocracy dominated. Conversely, around 1275 in Albigensian lands, Mendicants were composed of “only” 30% aristocrats.
The social origins of bishops evolved over time. As mentioned earlier, at the local level, the bishop’s power was significant, leading various lords to attempt to control the episcopate. As a result, emperors, sovereigns, or lords were compelled to directly appoint bishops, sometimes choosing from among their close relations. The pope faced a similar situation until imperial intervention in Rome in the 11th century, which led to what historians call the Investiture Controversy.
From then on, papal elections had to be validated by the cardinals, who were themselves appointed by the pope. One of the first effects of these struggles over investitures was to remove many bishoprics from the high aristocracy in favor of another, of “lesser” importance. Cathedral chapters thus became “training grounds” for the higher clergy. This contributed to the institutionalization of the Church, which increasingly attracted the attention of the secular aristocracy. Aristocrats who entered a chapter or abbey could hope to strengthen their local dominance and that of their lineage, potentially even becoming bishops in the best-case scenario.
In this context, clerics developed the notion of conversion, contrasting the cleric with the knight. This ecclesiastical construction should not be seen solely as an “entry into spirituality,” but rather as a sign of a social shift. The cleric positioned himself as the dominant figure, while the knight was relegated to a new order defined by the Church.
Finally, we can mention the invention of the Quest for the Holy Grail, first by Chrétien de Troyes in the 12th century and later by Robert de Boron. These narratives reflect the “spiritualization” of the secular aristocracy. Between the lines, one senses the triumph of Christian values that prefigure the mold into which chivalry would fit. Although clerics are absent from most of these works, the social model they developed is clearly present. In fact, the Church did not take offense at these stories.
Emergence of the Urban Aristocracy
With the rise of cities, an aristocracy described as “urban” gradually emerges, confronting the already established seigneurial aristocracy and the rest of society. Most of the time, the medieval city develops around one or more seigneurial cores, often centered around a bishop. The “urban continuity” from ancient cities is rarely observable, except perhaps in cities like Paris that maintain this ancient “starting point.” New cities (ex nihilo) mostly develop around a castle — as in 80% of cities in 13th-century Germany — or are the result of seigneurial initiatives like the creation of villeneuves or bastides, or when a charter of franchise is granted.
Within the cities, the aristocracy remains diverse. Alongside bishops, counts, and viscounts, one also finds milites, who guard fortresses in the absence of lords. In the South of France, for example, these milites could represent up to 10% of the urban population. In Nîmes, they occupied the Roman arena, transformed into the “Château des Arènes,” and numbered nearly one hundred by 1225. In other cities, they invested in fortified towers or defensive walls.
It is difficult to outline a typical relationship with cities across the entire medieval West. In Northern Italy, for instance, most of the secular aristocracy resided in the countryside, while the ecclesiastical aristocracy occupied the cities, exercising power through its curia vassalum until the late 12th century. This curia tended to anchor the lesser vassals in the city, a phenomenon called inurbamento. These lesser vassals retained their estates in the surrounding countryside, known as the contado. The city thus became a power center for great lords, princes, or kings. From the 13th century onwards, the great feudal lords established mansions in Paris, which brought them closer to the king. The king then took advantage of this to better monitor and control his loyal followers while symbolically affirming his domination.
From the 12th century, lords encouraged the settlement of specialized servants in the city who often acted as seigneurial agents, the ministeriales. Over time, these servants integrated into the prince’s familia and gradually obtained the right to pass on their positions hereditarily. In the city, they owned houses, mills, shops, and tonlieux (tolls) or other forms of rent. This small service aristocracy sometimes merged with merchants, as both activities often generated power due to control over goods, which allowed them to exert pressure on the population.
In this context, from the 13th century, there are cases of ennoblement of the merchant elite “as a reward for services rendered.” Gradually, the formation of the urban aristocracy primarily involved the appropriation of power in the city, which could be acquired in different ways: through seigneurial service, personal power fueled by estates in the contado, or through mercantile activity.
In many cities, there was a “fusion” between different aristocratic types. The term milites sometimes served as a common reference, and members of the aristocracy found themselves in “societies” or “communes of knights” as in Northern Italy. Other powerful city-dwellers formed “chivalric societies” in the 13th century. The codes of the Arthurian cycle were adopted here, particularly in the organization of tournaments that held significant symbolic value.
These societies and fraternities aimed to highlight the social rank of each of their members and also served as recruitment grounds for high-ranking magistrates. Falconry became a strong social differentiator, symbolizing social standing. In 1318 in Padua, urban citizens summarized knighthood with a few phrases: “To go with knights and squires, with horses, arms, and birds, and to participate in races, tournaments, and knighthood ceremonies […] to ride with men of worth, delight in horses, dogs, and birds, and go on horseback and hunting through the land.”
However, confusion arose regarding mounted warfare. In cities, a cavalry service developed with, for instance, caballeros vilanos in Spain or servientes elsewhere. But as we have seen, equestrian practice was the prerogative of aristocrats. New discourses then sought to distinguish noble knighthood from urban cavalrymen, in order to link chivalric dignity to noble birth.
The practice of knighthood ceremonies was no longer just a simple ritual marking entry into knighthood; it became a strong ideological sign of social belonging, revealing the desire for nobility. Nevertheless, this urban aristocracy remained warlike and did not hesitate to engage in conflicts. Tensions within dominant groups could be sharp, as evidenced by the long conflict between the Guelphs and Ghibellines in Florence starting in 1230. The construction of towers also served as a symbolic reminder of the castle world and seigneurial authority.
In cities — as elsewhere — being at the head of a vast familia was certainly a guarantee of holding significant social power. These familia or “houses” functioned more like structures of power than private, closed groups. For example, in Castile, these “lineages” were composed of several casas that might have no familial ties with each other. Various methods allowed for inclusion, such as marriage or after swearing an oath of loyalty. These were artificial constructions based on precise codes, aimed at maintaining social domination through access to power.
To conclude with the city, we must mention the emergence of a “new” specifically urban social group, composed of scholars. A new discourse was developed to recognize these individuals as belonging to a certain nobility. Personal merits were then emphasized, and relying in part on Roman law, nobility was redefined as a combination of celestial and military militia. Alfonso X of Castile’s code even acknowledged by the end of the 13th century that those who attained the rank of masters in law “bear the title of master and knight.” Some, like the Bolognese jurist Bartolomeo de Saliceto in the late 14th century, expanded on this idea, stating that “science ennobles a man externally and intellect internally.”
Aristocracy on the Road to the “Modern” Monarchic State
At the end of the Middle Ages, several transformations in the structure of power occurred, leading some historians to suggest a “crisis” was emerging. Indeed, a monarchic power, rather than merely a royal one, began to take shape. Aristocratic dominance was then institutionalized, transforming into a social category—the “nobility.” The concept of “nobility” as a whole emerged late, in the 15th century in Upper Germany, under the term Adel. This term appeared in a climate of tension, polarizing society between Adel on one side and cities on the other. This, however, was not without paradox, as this same nobility seemed, at the same time, firmly established within the cities.
The beginnings of the “Modern State” seem to take shape around the 14th century. By Modern or Monarchic State, one should not automatically refer to the royal person but rather understand it as power legitimately concentrated in the hands of a single person, whether physical or moral. This model, often making the monarch a “Prince,” was not the product of a consciously developed plan. One must take into account the longue durée (long-term processes). The goal here is not to explain the establishment of the Monarchic State—a subject still debated among specialists—but rather to outline a few key points.
It can already be said that various conflicts between sovereigns and the papacy contributed to redefining the position of the sovereign and introducing the idea that kings were “emperors in their kingdoms.” Thus, the king tended to assert his sovereignty by increasingly focusing on regal powers. General codification practices, aiming to compile Roman and canon law, reappeared—not to make recourse mandatory, but rather to establish a set of principles to draw from. There was a desire to restore a certain social harmony.
With Saint Louis, the establishment of the procedure for appealing to the king in case of conflict should not be seen as depriving local justice of its rights, as it fit perfectly within this judicial system. Indeed, in the 14th century, several aristocrats would call for a return to “the good old days of Monseigneur Louis.”
The king, according to Max Weber, sought to “monopolize legitimate violence.” Initially, he condemned private feuds, and this was soon followed by discourse on “just war” centered on the defense of territory. Thus, members of the same territory who aided enemies were seen as traitors who had to be eliminated. The old notion of war between the interior and exterior of Christendom seemed to give way to the distinction between the interior and exterior of the territory, thus contributing to the development of “borders.” In this context, royalty and seigniorial powers also attempted to regulate commerce, typically reserved for non-nobles. This attempt to institutionalize commerce by the monarchic power initially aimed to prevent nobles from accessing trade, thereby limiting—among other things—their excessive enrichment, keeping them under royal “tutelage.”
Some historians may have overstated the conflicts between royal power and the aristocracy. For them, the formation of aristocratic leagues is a sign of opposition to monarchic power and the rest of the aristocracy. In reality, a more complex organization can be observed. A kind of binary system indeed emerged, but it opposed more a pro-monarchic aristocracy to a more resistant aristocracy. This was “framed” by a network of often heterogeneous leagues. In the 16th century, for example, the “Imperial Knighthood” played on these oppositions to maintain its privileges by successively favoring opposing sides.
Nobility: A Homogeneous Social Body
During the 15th century, the discourse regarding the role of the secular aristocracy seemed to change. Previously, it claimed to serve “the widow and the orphan.” But gradually, with the growing importance of the king, the discourse began to revolve around him. Jean Juvénal des Ursins even declared: “To you, noble dukes, counts, princes, knights, and squires, love and honor the king in person […] it is your profession, you are noble for no other reason than to do this.”
At all levels of the aristocracy, the same mode of constructing a social fiction can be observed, aimed at framing and regulating the transmission and reproduction of power. Thus, “family trees” were more or less fictitious, gathering topolineages rather than actual families related by blood. These social groups were organized and hierarchized within “Crowns” for royal groups, “Houses” for high aristocracy, and “Helmets” for the equestrian rank.
Finally, the conflicts between aristocracy and royalty were, in reality, merely “lover’s quarrels,” as Victor Hugo wrote, because they took place within the aristocracy without much spreading beyond it. What one must retain is the process of homogenization of the nobility as a social class in the West from the 15th century. In this context of “aristocratic uniformization,” the discourse on nobility of blood could then develop, something unthinkable a few centuries earlier…
This brief history of medieval aristocracy is only a sketch of what occurred over the centuries and therefore omits many elements, particularly event-driven history, which also has its rightful place. However, what historians like Jacques Le Goff have tried to emphasize is the notion of the longue durée.
Evolution of the Aristocracy
- Early Middle Ages (5th–10th Century):
- The collapse of the Western Roman Empire led to the rise of regional kingdoms and the establishment of Germanic aristocracies (such as the Franks, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, and Anglo-Saxons). These early aristocrats were often warrior elites who gained power through conquest and military service.
- High Middle Ages (11th–13th Century):
- Feudalism reached its height during the High Middle Ages, with the nobility deeply entrenched in the social and political fabric of Europe. This period saw the consolidation of noble power, expansion of estates, and the rise of knighthood.
- The Crusades played a significant role in elevating the status of many nobles, as they participated in military campaigns in the Holy Land and gained new lands and titles.
- Late Middle Ages (14th–15th Century):
- The Late Middle Ages saw challenges to aristocratic dominance, particularly due to the rise of centralized monarchies (as in France and England) and the growing power of cities and the bourgeoisie. The Hundred Years’ War (1337–1453), the Black Death, and peasant revolts (like the Jacquerie in France) weakened the feudal system.
- Despite these challenges, the aristocracy remained a powerful class into the Renaissance, adapting to changing political dynamics while maintaining their privileges and estates.